The unlawful support proceedings of Michael J. Rotondo in Onondaga County NY

I did not include the order from the support magistrate dismissing my March 30, 2017 motion to dismiss, because this same dismissal is referenced as being dismissed, in the September 26, 2017 order denying my objections to the support order, which itself was taken from the proceedings which my March 30, 2017 motion to dismiss was filed in.

3_30_17_mtd

order_3_30_17

A court can’t order a person to start making more money. An unemployed person can have the support obligation of $25 per week imposed, and this effectively mitigates the fact that this unemployed person has a child with which they are responsible for. For any amount greater than $25 per month for that same unemployed person, the court must find an “imputed” income, meaning that the court has found that a person’s income is now considered higher than it actually is for the purposes of levying a child support order. This would all be be just fine and perfectly legal, except that this is how the law that gives a court power to impute income reads:

Family Court Act section 413(1)(b)(5)(v):
an amount imputed as income based upon the parent’s former
resources or income, if the court determines that a parent has reduced
resources or income in order to reduce or avoid the parent’s obligation
for child support;

…Which means an attempt to defraud the other party of child support, which cannot be considered as something that I’ve done.

Another thing, this “more substantial income”, that is being used by Onondaga County to impute my income for child support, is the job that I held at Best Buy. The problem with using this to impute child support, is that there was a hearing by the New York State department of labor, which found specifically that I was entitled to collect unemployment. This means that I can show that I was fired in a such a way that was no fault of my own, and therefor, could not be considered to have been a purposeful act of myself, taken to reduce my child support obligation.

This was on record with the court, with the collection of unemployment shown on my income tax records, and the only job in my work history that the unemployment could have been from, was my job at Best Buy. Also, and most significantly, there was no evidence ever entered throughout the proceeding that I had “reduced resources or income in order to reduce or avoid the parent’s obligation for child support”, whatsoever.